You may have heard us mention this a few times over the last few years but we’re now getting near to implementing the roadworthiness directive. This follows recent Department for Transport (DfT) consultations.
Most of the changes from this directive will need to happen in May next year, but for now, we’ll provide you with an overview of what we expect to change. We’ll focus on the detail over the next few months
What this means
The directive is a very broad set of rules that covers everything to do with the on road condition of vehicles. It won’t mean huge changes for us, but there’ll still be changes in the world of MOT, including some positive steps to tighten-up the rules on emissions.
One of the changes related to the directive is how 'historic vehicles' are dealt with - something DfT consulted on.
As a result of this consultation, the government has decided that there’ll now be a ‘rolling 40 year old’ exemption from MOT, instead of the current fixed pre-1960 rule. However, this will only apply for those vehicles that haven’t been modified.
Changes to the MOT test
The directive will change how we categorise defects. From 20 May 2018, they’ll be categorised as either ‘dangerous’, ‘major’ or ‘minor’, to help focus drivers on what’s more important.
Whilst this will help us explain to them how to look after their vehicles better, we’ll need to be careful not to make things complex for us all.
Dangerous and major defects
‘Dangerous’ and ‘major’ defects will cause the MOT to be failed. We’re still working on how we’ll make this look for drivers, but we want to make sure that the dangerous defects stand out on the documentation. This is to make it clear to them that they shouldn’t drive the vehicle away in that condition.
Minor defects
Where ‘minor’ defects are identified, these can be considered along the same lines as advisories are today.
We’re still doing some research on how these sit alongside some of things we currently issue advisories for, and how best to display this information to drivers.
When things are clearer, we’ll blog about this again. Some of you will see us as we’re out and about doing our research, so please feel free to ask us about it!
Advisories
We’re considering ways of allowing observations to be noted that aren’t aimed at the car driver.
An example of this might be if there was something like an undertray fitted that was stopping a tester from getting to parts that they would otherwise inspect.
This could be useful information to have noted for an MOT appeal, but it wouldn’t appear on the notes given to the car drivers, because it’s not information aimed at them.
It would be good to hear your thoughts on this, so please leave your comments at the end of this blog post.
The other area on advisories that we’re considering changing, is whether we move away from manual advisories - if all the ‘test related’ and other standard ones are available and easy to find. This may be a contentious change for some, so we’ll set out our thoughts in more detail in a follow-up blog post to make sure we get your feedback.
Emissions Testing
There will also be some changes to the emissions test that will lower the limits for diesel cars. This will mean some changes to diesel smoke meter settings or software. We’re currently working with the garage equipment manufacturers to enable them to get ready to do this work.
We’ll update you on what needs changing later this month, to give you at least 6 months to schedule this work in.
The inspection manual
All of these changes will mean that the manual will change. We’ve already been getting feedback on an early version from our VTS Council members, and we’ll make sure this is captured in the revised version, ready to be published shortly.
Vehicle categories
The directive will require us to move to the standard EU vehicle categories, which will help to bring consistency, from vehicle approval through to on road use. However, we’ll keep to the MOT classes for garage authorisations, for now - so this shouldn’t change the way how we do testing too much.
Research with garages and customers
We’re determined that the directive, and the changes it will bring, should make it easier for us to accurately record MOT results and provide information that will help drivers to look after their vehicles.
This means that we’ll need to do a lot of research with garages and their customers, so expect to see us out and about.
In the meantime, we’d appreciate your feedback, below in the comments section, so we can plan the way ahead.
299 comments
Comment by Steve White posted on
Why do we have to do some of the changes to keep in line with an “EU” directive we are outside the EU why not do things the way we want
Comment by A Turpin posted on
Changes to the diesel smoke meter software? More cost to the garage owner, in the last couple of years we have had to pay for new computer equipment and update other equipment,costs of paper,ink ,vast business rates rises,rises in wages and other associated overheads. But no increase in the cost of the MOT test since 2010. Save the motorist a few measly quid each year but put garages out of business and people out of work!!!
Even the DVSA have had to cut right back on personnel because of increasing costs.
Interest rates have just gone up because of inflation, Mot costs are actually going backwards , this needs sorting out fast!
Comment by steve posted on
Advisories could do with being graded. perhaps red amber green.... e.g. tyre close to limit... this could be on 1.6mm and noted in Red category as it will need to be replaced very soon. brake pads getting low could be an Amber as they are not as urgent but will need attention in a few months. A stone chip less than 40mm could be green as it is a tiny chip that doesn't need attention but you've had to note it as you've seen it. just a thought
Comment by Geo posted on
Totally agree that observations not aimed at the driver should be added such as under trays fitted etc. This at least gives us testers some background to any appeals etc and investigations from enforcement.
Comment by Clint posted on
Dangerous to drive away, all this means is that the MOT station will sting you for repairs. I use my own garage that l know and trust for all my repairs, they do not cheat, or rip me off. I believe that this will encourage MOT stations to find fault with cars, so that they can do unnessesary "repairs"
Comment by Andy Black posted on
I think bringing back the bounce Test on shock absorbers should be brought back into the test, the number of worn shockers coming through and can't fail them is rediculous. Driving the vehicle over the brake tester you can clearly feel there worn to excess. The customers that have taken my advice and had them replaced have always returned and thanked me telling me they had not realised that there vehicle was that bad.
Comment by phil starkey posted on
in the section for tyres it would need an advisory for cracks that are noted on test but with no cord visable are only an advisory as at the moment this can only added manualy
Comment by Antony Hearn posted on
We have customers that run their bikes on a shoestring and when we fail for example tyres are completely perished on the walls due to the age of the tyre their response is but there’s plenty tread left your now giving them the ability to not have to change dangerous components that put not only there life but others at risk MOT is the last line of defence to ensure these vehicles are not used on the roads. The only time anything is going to happen is when someone dies at the hands of one of these bovine idiots. Also if a vehicle doesn’t need an MOT how do you enforce tread below legal requirements if there is no process in place to point this out. Whoever thought of this is not of this planet. ????
Comment by Disgruntled posted on
Said a long time ago that things like under trays, engine covers and sill covers should be in non component advisories. Most modern vehicles have more plastic under and around them than they need. How can we test what we can't see?
Comment by Huw Curtis posted on
The Government should pass a law that unless you are qualified ( Gas has corgi ) you are breaking the law working on vehicles and this would stop / cut down your “Hallowe’en Horrors “ !!!!
Comment by D Banks posted on
What is the email address if I want to send in a photo of a vehicle that I failed
Comment by John Leslie Atkinson posted on
It would be better if PRS was showing on the fail sheet as PRS
Comment by Graham posted on
All advisories should appear within the hard copy and online records of a test outcome so that people viewing vehicles see the full story.
Comment by Ash posted on
You never listen anyway so why bother saying you want to hear people's views.
Comment by Gordon Hargest posted on
What would be classed as "MODIFIED"? Bigger wheels,conversion from drum to discs,better headlights etc?At which point does "Standard" become "modified"?
Comment by Bob posted on
Comment about the 40 year rolling mot exemption if not modified is going to be a hard one to enforce example a 1972 mk 1 escort with a 2 litre zetec engine with a 5 speed gearbox & the category for advising people to not drive away will not work as I have advised on some defects that should be done before the next mot only when the vehicle is presented for the next mot ( sometimes over 3 months out of date ) & it was advised last year not been done hope it will pass again this year
Comment by Kevin Braddock posted on
Removing manual advisories will stop me from letting the driver know his/her tyres are wearing on the inner edge or that they're perished for instance. So not such a good idea.
Comment by pete O'Dell posted on
utterly ridiculous having a rolling 40yr exemption its just a charter for "classic" bodgers to palm crap off on joe public. as for falling in line with the EU ....... has anyone heard of brexit by any chance, our mot stds are already better than most eu countrys
Comment by Len posted on
I have 2 points,
1, some customers are not happy having an advisory of any sort, be it under trays or oil leaks, especially when the car is going up for sale,
2, I think a manual advisory section should stay, just incase it's needed, you never know !!!!!
Comment by Richard posted on
Just read this but not really digested it all, but the thing for me that stands out is the "dangerous, major & minor" part, why on earth is this needed, we have a perfectly good system in place, pass/fail & advisories, but with what your proposing it's just going to complicate matters & what's the reasoning behind removing the manual advisory part?
To me all advisories are aimed at the car driver, if an under tray or engine cover is there, then they should be informed so & why it was advised, I've never had a complaint as to why I've advised on it. I think this is pampering & more to do with the second hand car market/dealers as they don't like advisories listed.
I feel you've taken what is a perfectly usable system, which has taken a long time to get right & thrown it out of the window.
Comment by glendon Nowlan posted on
Manual advisories should not be removed from the system
Comment by ANDREW FOSTER posted on
WHILE YOUR STILL ALOWING CUT PRICE MOTS YOU HAVE DEVALUED THE MOT TO A FINE DRIVERS HAVE TO PAY RATHER THAN A WORTHWILE INSPECTION . IT WILL NEVER CEASE TO AMAZE ME THAT VEHICLES CAN BE SERVICED AND STILL NOT BE ABLE TO PASS AN MOT. SO POOR IS THE CONTROL OF STANDARDS IN THE MOTOR INDUSTRY THAT ANYBODY CAN REPAIR A CAR IVE ALSO NOTICED THE LOWERING OF STANDARDS TO BE AN MOT TESTER
Comment by Craig ilsley posted on
I don’t feel we should be doing away with the manual advisory section. I find it very useful tool.
Comment by steve terry posted on
If you want us to advise undertrays fitted then that would include over 50 % of vehicles tested and in a few years time probably nearer to 90% as the majority of new vehicles have several trays fitted and include complete floor pan trays and front bumper back to floor areas so this would be ridiculous. As for losing manual advisories well who thought that one up. I do manual advisories every day as for instance tyres have different wear in different areas or damage etc. in different localised areas which I advise the customer of, and those specific details are not covered by the standard system advisory. also with regards to corrosion I can manually advise that specific areas are rusting and to what extent, again not covered by a standard advise. The list goes on - - - -
Comment by dave willcocks posted on
i don't think i would be happy with the "no manual advise" removed as there are a lot of things on later vehicle that you cant inspect due to under trays and the like. Brake pipes are almost impossible to see on some vehicles but it would not be fair to advise IE- Corrosion/rusted brake pipes/etc on a customers pride and joy 10,000 BMW in mint condition! I do think it would be good if we had advisory "not able to fully inspect" due to covers fitted.
Comment by gavin riley posted on
Why take away manual advisory, you will never be able to cover everything, and keeping manual advisory will stop testers banging their heads against a wall trying to find your automated items. Manual advisory gives the tester chance to state exactly what he wishes to state.
Comment by cheekyboy posted on
Personally I like the system of pass, fail, or advise, don't see why this needs changing, can see many mistakes happening by clicking on the wrong bit when it comes to minor or advisories, in my opinion if the driver doesn't need to know about an advisory as it stands then its not worth advising in the first place.
Comment by ELIZABETH HEALY posted on
REFERENCE ADVISORIES: SURELY IT IS THE CUSTOMERS RIGHT TO KNOW IF THEIR CAR HAS BEEN COMPLETELY TESTED OR NOT . IT WOULD GIVE THEM LEAVE TO APPEAL IF THEY FOUND OUT CERTAIN THINGS UNDER THE CAR HAVE NOT BEEN TESTED.
Comment by D Ford posted on
More money for garages to upgrade there co machines
Comment by David Goldsmith posted on
Manual advisories are great to cover the tester in certain cases. For instance, "headlamp masked for test" and "no lights fitted at time of test" have disappeared from the non component related advisories.
Comment by Neil Osman posted on
Being able to record observations which will not be visible to the driver is a good idea!
Comment by g melfi posted on
the idea of observation items would be useful to be noted
Comment by chris swann posted on
Would a "tested in wet conditions" be a good idea along with engine covers/undertrays etc, it can effect the how certain components look if wet or dry(brake pipes/ferrules/shockers for listing etc)
Comment by Ian howat posted on
i have a 1960 wollseley 1500 .i keep it in first class mechanical order.it has not failed the mot in the 16 years ive owned it.each mot the tester gies over everthing .i watch him do it ..however often because it does not need some of the parts of the test he has to wait for the time to lapse...i may continue to take my car as ling as he is still testing .he was trained as mechanic on cars like mine...i think many newer testers are not familiar with these old vehicles. i think the new change is good..people like myself keep our cars A1 anyway
Comment by Maithri Gunasekara posted on
Removing some failures will make it easier for some people to pass the mot but how will this reflect on road safety? i.e We need more consultations before doing away with any failures that are there currently.
I regularly advice people if their tyres are old and perishing, I recently passed a 2000 model car with tyres made in 1995. How would I advise this to a customer if you remove manual advisories?
Comment by Ronnie Chalmers posted on
Why not make it mandatory to have under trays and wheel trims that hide wheel studs removed before submitting for testing I know this would be extra cost to customer but it is for their benefit that all items testable can be viewed.
Comment by Steve Wheatley posted on
hi , I still have serious reservations about the MOT exemptions I think it is a licence for any unscrupulous trader to pull a rotten or otherwise unroadworthy vehicle out of a hedge bottom or wherever to make a fast buck,I thinkthat the mot should be kept as a means of keeping older vehicles safe, but as a very minimum safegaurd I would suggest that if a historic vehicle changes owner or keeper it must do so with a fresh or recent mot certificate.thanks for the chance to comment by the way its good to be able to have a say in the system cheers Steve W
Comment by Richard wright posted on
When you have it all sorted this time will that be it, or will the pen pushes just alter it again. Is all this just to keep you in jobs
Comment by Tim posted on
I think there should be a undertrays fitted tick box on the main enter test results screen as many cars now are fitted with undertrays as standard
Comment by Tim Rogers posted on
With regard to the display of Major and Minor defects to the driver of the vehicle, a traffic light system would be easy to interpret, Red=Major(Fail), Amber= Minor (pass and advise), Green (pass). Most garages are used to a VHC system that uses this kind of approach already anyway.
Comment by Roy p posted on
I think manual advisories are ok it's a way of letting the owner about something we might have seen when testing the vehiicle
Comment by andrew grainger warboys posted on
All sounds very positive, I personally think that you should keep the manual advisory secton this is a useful tool to add comments that may not be in the test,ie dead bird obstructing cooling fins!
Comment by Tony Wood posted on
we should continue at present with advisories written on the VT20 as most people buying a vehicle will look at the VT20 and read the advisories. This will help them make a considered opinion on the vehicle before purchase.
In a few years time when most users are using the on-line system to check vehicle test history then it might be a time to not have the advisories on the VT20 displayed, but not until then.
Comment by Peter chinn posted on
I already state if the vehicle has under trays and engine covers fitted
Comment by Mike Scotney posted on
having read the last blog about defects found on older vehicles I think this is a potential nightmare about to happen which will leave unsafe vehicles on our roads the government should think again ignore being inline with europe as we are leaving the EU anyway & concentrate on safety on our roads for the vehicle types & ages we currently have if anything MOT testing should be reinstated for pre 60 vehicles also making ANY motor vehicle using the public highway needing an MOT to ensure it is at least checked independently once a year
I really cannot see the benefit to making vehicle over 40 years exempt at all
Comment by Ken Santi. Fishburn Service Station posted on
Its not so much about changing the categories its more a case of educating drivers about maintenance of vehicles, to often I have to mark brakes, ball joints and tyres (bald and cords exposed) as dangerous, remember they've been presented for an MOT test in this state, I had an argument with a customer over badly corroded brake pipes, he said it was his daughters car and she didn't drive it quickly so they'd be OK, it was brakes!!!!, re-education would be better than telling them how bad their car is after the MOT.
Comment by Mr H Koulle posted on
Please keep manual advisers. Good idea of not displaying the engine covers/under trays on the advisory as having to explain it to a customer is rather tedious.
Comment by Phil posted on
Advisories are definitely an area that's needs updating. It would be good if we could advise the presenter of some things and DVSA others.
Maybe there could be 2 categories, one which appears on the print out and public digital record and one which only DVSA sees.
I don't see the benefit of removing manual advisories though, there are many instances when an advisory will be relevant to the vehicle, but it hasn't been included on the system.
Having to keep putting 'Covers fitted' all the time is just pointless though. If the vehicle was fitted with undertrays as standard then this should be taken as such.
Comment by c muggleton posted on
why are moving to eu categories when we are leaving it
Comment by Ralph Payne posted on
I feel your going in the right direction— however take time to implement the changes and defiantly consult garage testers and find their views,
You mention in your comments about undertray— pity it’s not currently anywhere to select— putting stuff like undertrays and engine covers etc would help testers get it right for every mot test.
Comment by Jim Willett posted on
It seems a backward step for road safety to grant MOT exemption to vehicles over 40 years old: Not all classic vehicle owners are competent mechanics: As their vehicles develop defects which would have been highlighted to them as test failures or advisories, they may continue to drive their vehicle on public roads, completely unaware of a potentially dangerous fault.
Comment by Tim posted on
No Mot for a car that is over 40 years old unless its been modified? By modified do you means its got slightly bigger wheels than standard or its gone from a 1.3 to a 2 litre? In some cases you might not know the model and wont know if its been modified or not?
Comment by greg maxwell posted on
i think it would be a good idea to add weather conditions when tested, in the advisory section
Comment by Otis posted on
Whist I am appreciative for the "Heads up" I am somewhat bemused at us " coming in line with the EU as we are set to leave next year.
Comment by Simon Nethercott posted on
As the owner of a classic motorcycle workshop in Somerset, I find the idea of 40 year old motorcycles no longer requiring a MOT disturbing. I agree that some owners of classic vehicles are fastidious with their maintenance, most are not. We are always finding problems, some dangerous, with the older machines. The owners just want to ride the bikes they had in their teens. They knew very little about them then and now in their 50's, they still know very little. We accept that classic machines will not always be perfect but safety is the bottom line. If it's not safe we wont pass the bike. This once a year check will soon be gone. Worrying.
Comment by Lou posted on
We need to keep the manual advisories section as not all things are listed for motorcycles / scooters etc as the MOT system is still mainly geared towards cars.
Comment by G.R.TOWLE posted on
Why should we have to report under trays when you know the vehicles that have them fitted as standard.
Comment by Chuck posted on
Dangerous, major and minor class of defects is too much complication. a fail's a fail. Why must there always be fannying about? To justify your job?
If a car's dangerous, the tester can inform the customer. What next, testers restraining drivers from taking away dangerous cars? Issuing them with fixed penalties (don't give them ideas, Chuck)?
A fail by definition is dangerous, otherwise why is it failing if it's not dangerous? Surely the MOT is about roadworthieness? "You have a Major defect but it's not Dangerous". Dear God.
Look mate, you don't have to come up with loony ideas every month to justify the huge salary the tax payer is paying you.
Comment by Ian Anderson posted on
If you are talking away manual advisories, you desperately need to implement a fail and advise for perished tyres. I have personal experience of one delaminating at French motorway speeds and have never understood that it is or in any specific criteria, it truly can be a killer
Comment by Allan jack posted on
Some vehicle come with under body trays from from to rear and side to side and it’s very hard to see any thing more and more manufacturers are fitting under trays